This is the story of how a group of 130 buyers of Raheja Vedaanta were misled by Mr Joey Saggar & Mr Raj Kumar Khanna about the status and responsibility of the approach road to Vedaanta, situated in Sector 108, Gurgaon.

Extract from Settlement "Analysis" sent by Joey & Khanna to Vedaanta buyers to convince them for Settlement with Raheja Developers. The letter was full of falsehoods, including that about the approach road.In justifying the lack of a 24m road, a notification dated 24.01.2011 is quoted, and assertion made that "EVEN THE INSTRUCTIONS Dated 24.01.2011 issued by the department at a later stage also provided that licence for development of a group housing can be granted if the site is approachable from 22 ft. wide public Rasta ....." To justify this false interpretation, Joey & Khanna also preface it with "basically faulty policy of DTCP department," and "in simple language loop holes were deliberately kept while forming policy and in issuance of circulars builders took the benefit from that loop holes." They are just dressing up what is essentially a lie.

The Department of Town & Country Planning (DTCP) is a pretty responsible & smart organization, and there are no "loop holes"(sic) in the policies and circulars regarding approach roads. The loopholes are because people in and out of DTCP are presenting a twisted interpretation of the policy 24.01.2011 and its applicability.

This policy of 24.01.2011 was applicable for future licences, and not for licences like that of Vedaanta which was issued in 2007, much before this 2011 policy was issued.

The essential question is how can Occupation Certificate be granted to Raheja Vedaanta in November 2014 without the 24m road, when during the grant of licence a 24m road was promised. Both Joey & Khanna have tried to answer a false question about Grant of Licence, while diverting fellow buyers away from the question of how Occupation Certificate was granted to Raheja Vedaanta in 2014. This policy of 24.01.2011 that they confuse this whole issue with is for grant of NEW Licences, and NOT about Occupation Certificates.

Moreover, this notification of 24.01.2011 was not applicable during November 2014, because it had been superseded by another notification dated 05.09.2014. Thus, not only were the friends of Raheja applying the notification inappropriately, they were applying a policy that was no longer in force - it had been superseded by a new notification.

If, as Joey & Khanna's letter asserts, that "Reply by DTCP in High Court states" these falsehoods about the 24.01.2011 notification and its applicability, then DTCP has perjured itself. And instead of prosecuting DTCP for false affidavits and perjury, Joey & Khanna were induced into withdrawing their High Court case that could have prevented the UGLY truth from coming out in court.

These assertions about the 24m approach road in the email sent by Mr Raj Kumar Khanna are plain & simple mischievous lies, and you can see the full Settlement "Analysis" document here

The 24.01.2011 notification clearly says, that "In future, the cases may be examined as per above policy ..." Which means that, in future, the cases for grant of new licences may be examined as per the 24.01.2011 policy. If this point is not clear to you yet, it will soon become crystal clear when you see the policy that superseded this policy.

After this 24.01.2011 policy, another notification was issued on 23.06.2011 which reduced the requirement of the 22 feet road in earlier policy to 11 feet road!! But, these were only for grant of new licences.

Then, a Public Notice was issued on 27.05.2014, for draft of policy "in supersession of the existing policy for approach road for the purpose of grant of licence dated 24.01.2011 & 23.06.2011." Supersession means an "act of replacing one person or thing by another especially one held to be superior."

If new policy was "in supersession" of the 24.01.2011 policy, it means that the policy of 24.01.2011 was proposed to be replaced by a new policy, for which public notice had been issued.

Then on 05.09.2014 (just 2 months before the Grant of Occupation Certificate to Raheja Vedaanta, and almost 7 years after the GRANT OF LICENCE), the new policy was notified. It clearly states that this policy was "in supersession of this office Memo No. Misc-504/7/16/2006-2TCP dated 24.01.2011 ....

So, when Raheja & DTCP & Joey & Khanna are referring in April 2015 to the 24.01.2011 policy, even though it was superseded in September 2014, it is nothing but sheer lies & deception. And, on top of it they are using the policy to refer to a Licence granted in 2007 (Raheja Vedaanta is licence no. 204 of 2007) it is more than deception - it is sheer fraud. Raheja Vedaanta licence No. 204 of 2007 was granted on 11 August 2007, as can be seen from List of licences at TCP Haryana website, and the fact that the policy of 24.01.2011 and the policy of 05.09.2014 that superseded it do not apply to the Raheja Vedaanta case is clear from the 2nd page of the policy document as highlighted below.

In my numerous conversations with Mr Joe Saggar (from London), it is very clear that Mr Saggar knew that this approach road policy did not apply to Vedaanta, just as he fully knew about the Environment Clearance violations in Vedaanta (about which he wrote in great detail to Mr Manoj Singh & also to the NDTV Anchor Sreenivasan Jain), and yet Mr Saggar was silent about all this in discussion with Vedaanta buyers. And, after settlement with Mr Navin Raheja and Raheja Developers, he even made very nonsensical statement like "Raheja has given us a 20 .. 15 meter road, which I have driven on that road, which is better than 24 meter ...."

And, the settlement speech, that Mr Raj Kumar Khanna, gave in praise of Mr Raheja Saab ... notice, he does not raise the issue of either EC or Approach Road ...

Aside from the financial impropriety that some buyers have accused Mr Khanna of, the big dis-service that Joey & Khanna have done to the buyers is to have withdrawn the case in Punjab & Haryana High Court. Even though the group was 110 strong at that time, Mr Saggar & Mr Khanna, surreptitiously filed the High Court case only in their own joint names. And, when they reached the settlement, the simply withdrew the case, and with it hopes of many buyers to nail the crooked departments and get fair compensation. Around 80 people settled with Raheja Developers based on the false documents of settlement analysis provided by Mr Saggar & Khanna ...

About 50 Vedaanta buyers are still pursuing Navin Raheja and Raheja Developers at the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and five have re-filed a case in the P&H High Court. But even though the case CWP 11828 of 2016 was filed in June 2016, no notices have yet been issued to the respondents - squarely because Joey, Khanna, Raheja, and DTCP have sullied the court waters so much ...